Thursday, May 10, 2012
Abolition of Man
As I read President Obama’s statement in support of same-sex marriage, it came to me that it is very relevant in the context of doing our review of ‘Abolition of Man’. Therefore, I thought I would try and be a bit inflammatory in order to stimulate a discussion around the book.
Part 1 is called ‘Men without Chests’, and in short, I believe it is stating that there is an attack on the idea of universal truth in modern times. That everything from morals to beauty is now subjective. Given I live in a very socially liberal city and interact daily with college graduates that don’t attend church, it is clear that they have been trained to view the world through subjective eyes. They have great hostility towards objective standards (hence the Bible is a dangerous book in their view). For example, when I ask what is superior musically, the sound of a boy farting or Bach’s great works they ultimate reply that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. They are forced to admit that Bach is not necessarily better. The same thing goes with morality, it is all subjective and based on feelings. And in fairness, without a God, who is to say murder is wrong? Without something bigger outside of us, there is no universal truth.
Secular people do not use an objective document like the Bible to obtain their values, but rather use subjective feelings (their heart). I often ask non-believers (and often even believers) where they get their values from, and they respond “their heart”. In other words, they do what they feel, as they are the center of the universe. So this leads me to Obama’s decision on same-sex marriage (quick blurb below from his press release):
In an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an "evolution" that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters. I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,"
CS Lewis would be rolling over in his grave I believe. How did Obama come to his position? Not based on a universal law supported by every great moral tradition in the history of the world. Not based on new information showing scientifically that it is a good thing. He based it on his subjective feelings. This mentality, according to CS Lewis, will ultimately enslave man (but that conclusion is part 3, and so far I only attempted to summarize part 1 of the book).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI must say I'm a bit tentative about this response, but I think you've got the order wrong, both about what comes first, morality or God as well as how Lewis thinks about it.
DeleteFirst what comes to my mind from the scriptures: Paul, in Romans 1 argues that all people have a basic knowledge of God that comes, not from a reading of the Bible (because they don't have it), but from a FEELING they have – naturally. Similarly, recall Abraham's discourse with God as God is intent to destroy Sodom. It is Abraham who says to God: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right [and not destroy the righteous with the unrighteous]".
Lewis takes this one step further in referring in several of his books to "The TAO", which is what he calls natural law. It is included as an appendix in THE ABOLITION OF MAN. He also refers to THE TAO repeatedly in Mere Christianity, but I would need to reread it to recall exactly what he said.
So for both Paul and Lewis, the existence of the natural law, the feelings that we all have about what is right and wrong, is a powerful argument for the very existence of God. Personally, I find that argument very convincing, probably the most convincing argument that God exists.
I certainly grant that you live in a more socially liberal milieu than I do. I do, nevertheless, converse with one avowed atheist on a regular basis, and that on issues of morality. This friend certainly considers himself no more the centre of the universe than I do. He has very strong moral standards -- not all the same as mine, but mostly.
I must say I find it surprising that the people you converse with equate farting with Bach. I mean after all I do not see people paying money to go and hear people fart. If the comparison is heavy metal or Bach, I agree it is a matter of subjective taste.
When I did most of my reading of Lewis, I scarcely knew what homosexuality was. I don't recall that he said anything that would be referring to homosexuality.
I do grant you, however, that the present discussion about homosexuality is probably causing him to turn over in the grave, perhaps for the reason you say, but I think not. I think he would be turning over in his grave because of the ease with which so many in the Christian church focus on the sins that don't even tempt them (homosexuality and abortion), and by so doing trivialize the sins that are a part of their life -- heterosexual sin (most notably pornography, but also other), consumerism, state sanctioned torture -- to name but the most obvious. Lewis' THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS comes to mind.
What is the basis, do you think, of the verdict of the Nuremberg Trials or the Geneva Convention? I think it is NATUAL LAW. So why do you think so many Americans are more outraged by Obama's opinion on homosexuality than his disregard for the Geneva Convention? Both are moral issues.
I wasn't even going to read this book and became interested when Karl and CAB posted. We recently had a long and interesting discussion in church about a topic similar to this and I have been thinking more about this lately.
ReplyDeleteI have only read part one and must say that I found it a difficult read. I am sure that I only understood half of what he said. Usually I have found Lewis to take a complex idea and make it simpler to understand and I did not find that here.
Here is my take on Karl's summary (keeping in mind half of part one was not understood). I think I get what Karl was saying and trying to illustrate however I think the homosexuality issue is separate from what Lewis is trying to describe. A number of times Lewis talks about universal values. The Tao as well he describes as the direction that the universe is going and I do not have the book in front of me but I took that to be more related to values. Love, courage, compassion, etc. would be values to me that most everyone could agree on. There would be room for debate as what kind of action is loving, whether some action is actually courageous but the Tao of universe is that love and courage are good. That is more how I read part one.
Mark
I believe an area of disagreement here is what the ‘TAO’ is within the ‘Abolition of Man’. As I read Uncle Eric’s description, I see him equated the TAO to conscience. I agree, conscience is a powerful argument for the existence of God. When Cain killed Abel, there were no laws yet revealed, but God did not find Cain blameless. The story tells me we have a built in conscience where we should know some basic right and wrong. However, the Bible acknowledges that conscience is not enough to create a good society, and God has to reveal universal laws after the flood and then in more detail with the 10 commandments (albeit first revealed to the Jews) and other laws. If C.S. Lewis just meant conscience, would he not just have written that? When looking at C.S Lewis’ illustrations of the ‘TAO’, he takes the sections to reveal these codes, which from the Bible are effectively the man treatment of man laws (ie, he takes out man-God laws such as the keeping of the Sabbath, idolatry, etc..)
ReplyDeleteTherefore, while C.S. Lewis makes conscience as a great case for the existence of God, conscience is not sufficient to create a good society. I read what he is saying is that this feeling-based morality, is all subjective and leading the world into a dark place and conclusions contrary to the ‘TAO’. If we simply rely on individual conscience, what does one say to the Nazi at the Nuremberg trial that says in their society killing Jews was the right thing to do? (as was in fact argued)
Since it has been a week and no commentary, should I conclude you agree with my last statement? I think it is important, as I think part 1 of the book is helpful in understanding the right/left divide today. Do we want to make policy on feelings/heart, or do we want to rely on the wisdom of the ‘TAO’? The left in general has made their conclusion, they want to discard the ancient texts and replace it with feelings. I am not suggesting people on the left are worse human beings or less religious. But I am suggesting that they de-emphasize ancient wisdom, having more faith in human goodness. I think C.S. Lewis in part 1 – and certainly I – find that to be foolish policy.
ReplyDeleteSilence does not always mean agreement. Sometimes it means business(:.
ReplyDeleteMy own thinking about TAO, universal laws and conscience is not clear. The US constitution, for example says "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." But it was written by men who owned slaves.
Most Christians believe strongly in monogamy and believe slavery to be wrong. They say that their conviction (feelings?) in this regard comes directly from their understanding of what we are called to as Christians. But the biblical instruction with regard to these two very important moral issues is implicit, not explicit.
To take this a step further, if we emphasize ancient wisdom over human goodness, does that not call us to polygamy, slavery and the chattelization of women.
If I read the Old Testament correctly there was a level of violence there that we are spared today. Think of Lamech (Genesis 4:23-25). An eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth. Basically, whenever the government cannot be relied on to carry out justice, relatives and friends take it upon themselves to carry out justice. The result is a much more violent society. Today think of honor killings and various forms of vengeful killings considered normal in more traditional societies. We saw this in Ethiopia.
In the case of the Nuremberg trials, on what basis was it said that killing Jews (and gypsies and handicapped people) was wrong? Was it an appeal to ancient wisdom? I think not. I have not studied the trials, but I think, in the end, they just said this is right, that is wrong. There is no ancient text.
To go to your attempt to explain the left/right divide today, are you saying that the left emphasizes "treat others as you would wish to be treated", whereas the right has a more objective standard? If so, who identifies that objective standard? My observation is that if that is allowed, then it is the powerful who determine the standard, with predictable biases.
So perhaps you are saying that predictability is MOST important in policy (and I certainly agree that predictability is important), and predictability only comes when there is an objective standard. This is why a faith in human goodness is not a good basis for policy.
I place a higher value on the protection of the vulnerable and powerless, a value that comes out of the TAO as well. But I concede this will result in messier policy.
What is the basis for the International Declaration of Human Rights?
A pretty big question for me right now is, as one determines what is right or wrong, does one go from the general to the specific, or does one go from the specific to the general? It was Obama's opinion on same-sex marriage that started off this post. So does one begin a discussion of same sex marriage by examining the IDHR and applying those values to the issue, or does one formulate an opinion on same sex marriage, and then judge the IDHR on the basis of that opinion.
Fair enough on delayed response. I have certainly gone through periods where I have not responded.
ReplyDeleteI think your final paragraph is a good point of discussion. I don’t get my values from the International Declaration of Human Rights. Nor do I get it by formulating an opinion per se. I get my values from the Bible. That is the point of part 1 of the book. Today, we are creating values on individual subjective feelings as we have tossed God out.
To your questions on whether the Bible also teaches about slavery, polygamy, and treating women like property – hence why trust every word - I would argue it doesn’t teach that. For example, it regulates “slavery” (I put it in quotes, since the Bible is really referring to bonded indemnitor, which is a way for people to pay back money. It in no way resembles anything like the slavery that existed in the US 200 years ago) to a level that causes the form to be similar to any employer/employee relationship today; you can’t harm a slave, if a slave runs away you can’t retrieve them, when they are set free one (6 years) is to furnish him with a flock, etc...
Anyway, we can go through difficult parts of the Bible (which I am happy to do) but the point is the Bible is my source of values. If there is something in there I don’t agree with and substitute my own view, then I am the source of my values – not something outside of me like God. Lewis is saying that an objective standard should rule both powerful and powerless. If we simply base values on our feelings, then as Lewis points out, the powerful will create rules that benefit them. So exactly counter to your claim, Lewis is suggesting that without objective standards, we are doomed to be enslaved (but again, that is part 3 in the book) as the powerful will create their own rules. Unfortunately, that appears to be the subjective feelings-based road we are on today.
Is it just me or have Karl and Eric just flipped sides of left/right debate. Karl arguing for more regulations and tighter restrictions and Eric arguing for less restrictions and less regulations???
ReplyDeleteMark
I think its fair to say, that the left wants more fiscal regulations, and the right more of certain social regulations. The two notable ones being restrictions on abortion and definitions of marriage. In the case of abortion, the right believes it is a form of murder, while the left is more concerned about the feelings of the mother. In the case of same-sex marriage, the right more concerned with societal implications, the left more concerned with the feelings of the gay. In both cases, I think the right uses the Tao, or ancient wisdom, in deciding policy. The left, I think uses feelings as their guide. Those using feelings, typically don't ask what the implications to society will be.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced that it is sufficiently illuminating to merely say my values come from the bible or the TAO.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Bible, as well as the TAO say "Thou shalt not kill." But then history is replete with exceptionalisms. (I think if you were to apply your left/right grid to the exeptionalisms, you would find both invoke it.) The exceptionalism is, of course, always applied to your own side, because obviously you're right. I dare say this is the basis for all wars as well as capital punishment. There simply have been few peoples (as societies, cultures), if there have been any, in history who have not allowed for state sponsored killing.
The exception to the exceptionalisms is Jesus, who not only invoked the TAO of "Thou shalt not kill", he added to that something that was not in the TAO, namely "Love your enemies." The teaching of Jesus makes very difficult, nay well nigh impossible, in my opinion, to justify state sponsored killing. Nevertheless followers of Jesus have, from Constantine on, have allowed this exception.
Having said that, I have difficulty applying this to the current abortion debate. I am against abortion, but I have huge difficulty aligning myself with the current expressions of the anti-abortion sentiment. For one thing, much of it comes across as totally unloving, and in the extreme case results in murder of doctors. I certainly don't see how the current Right in America can call for MANDATED killing of Afghanis as a valid exception to "Thou Shalt not Kill", an not ALLOW the termination of a pregnancy for an unwanted child.
How is the TAO helpful, or how can one say one follows the teaching of the Bible?
Regarding slavery, polygamy and the chatelization of women, my point was not that the Bible teaches these values. I do not believe it does. Furthermore, I believe western civilization has made huge progress with respect to these issues over the many years. My point is, that it has not been an adherence to ancient wisdom that has resulted in this progress. It has been some other appeal to human goodness. For Christians I believe a significant influence has been Jesus' interpretation of the OT and the TAO. For other traditions, I do not know.
I certainly agree that good people can disagree on the exact intent of the Bible in all cases. But that remains my source of values and it is a constant struggle to better understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is clear to me, that "Thou Shalt not kill" in Hebrew, meant "Thou shalt not murder". Murder is unjustified killing, where as killing in battle or killing the wicked - is not called murder. "Thou shalt not kill" is obviously from Exodus in the old testament, and the old testament was very clear numerous times (most notably Genesis 9:6) that if a man commits murder - by man must the murderer be killed. So was the old testament internally inconsistent between the Ten Commandments and Genesis 9:6? Clearly not in my view. Therefore, I have moved in my view on capital punishment as a result of reading the Bible. Yes, Jesus emphasizes love your enemy (although Leviticus in the old testament also discusses this) but how does that general statement simply negate capital punishment? Should we interpret Jesus as saying we should do nothing to those that murder? I am not postulating that the issue is crystal clear - and I still struggle on the topic - but I am increasingly clear that the Bible supports capital punishment. It was so emphasized in the old testament (for example it was the first law given to Noah after the flood, and the first law given to the Jews when they entered the promised land) that I think Jesus would have been more clear if he intended to overturn such a law. So to your other point, abortion is killing innocence, whereas killing in battle was not described as murder in any part of the BIble.
But either way, at the risk of debating capital punishment or pacifism, I did change my view a little on the topic because I thought a lot about what the Bible teaches. So perhaps good people can disagree on the topic. In both cases, I think you and I are sourcing the Bible or the 'Tao' to come to our view on the topic. However, if we simply use our "heart" or "feelings" as most people in this post-Christian era do - that is where C.S. Lewis has a problem.
To the question of "what is the source of your values" I would be far more comforted if people responded 'The Bible' even if some interpreted it different - whereas today most (particularly those on the left) freely say "their heart" not realizing the dangerous road we are on (as C.S. Lewis discusses in the book).
I am going to take this maybe in a bit of a different direction and I am sorry but I do not have the book so I am still on part 1 here. I too have appreciated this discussion and have found it thought provoking. I am quite OK with using the Bible to validate my values or to get my values from the Bible. This makes sense to me and I would agree that seems to me to be what Lewis was getting at in part 1. I would still argue that values are different from issues but we are probably past that.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have is when do I force my values on others. We have veered off of Part 1 of the Abolition of Man but this is what has been garnering discussion on this blog. It seems to me Karl is saying that if the Bible says it then the state should impose it. I would argue that even if my values come from the Bible (or my perception of the Bible) I should not necessarily impose those values on others.
I would also wonder which moral I would choose to impose on others. If abortion and homosexuality should be restricted according to the Bible and if everyone should abide by that, then why not include adultery, fornication, drunkenness, etc?
I would agree with many things said about this book, however I have not seen in Part 1 at least, that because there is an objective book of values that the state should impose those values on everyone. I am not sure that is the direction we want to go in this discussion but it has been a common thread in most of the comments so I will throw it out there.
Mark
I enjoy this conversation, as we are hitting important topics and despite being some hot-button issues, I find others very respectful.
ReplyDeleteMark, I wanted to attempt to address your point on the dilemma of imposing your values on others, and the question of why not put same-sex marriage and adultery as equivalent dilemmas. U. Eric somewhat similarly questioned earlier why conservatives are so concerned with same-sex marriage, over other issues. To be clear, I do not care what people do in their private lives if they are not hurting others. I am a sinner like everyone, and I would not differentiate between myself, vs a practicing homosexual, or an adulterer. However, the issue is do we want to say as a society, that same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage, and that for raising children they are equal? I think it unwise. I would think it would be similarly unwise, to say as a society, couples that commit adultery habitually, are just as ideal as those that remain monogamous. If married couples that slept with other people (other than their spouse) every night, were given equal status for adoption as monogamous couples - I would be equally against that.
Ultimately, if we don't want society to set an ideal, where do we draw the line? Do we say that people should have the right to murder their children? It is not that far-fetched, as for much of history, that was common, as children were the property of the parents. But we now (I think rightly according to the TAO) say that is wrong.
On the topic of homosexuality more generally, I have one more comment. In San Francisco for the next month, it is gay-pride month. Therefore, all around downtown, there are gay-pride flags funded by the taxpayers. I certainly don't believe these people are any worse than I am. However, I am not flaunting a sin of mine, as morally equivalent to the "TAO". I don't participate in "Gossip-Pride" parades, and try and have the tax-payer fund flags suggesting gossiping is a good thing for society.
I have finally completed chapter 1 of the Abolition of Man. Wow. Although not written that long ago the ideas are already old fashioned to the modern ear. That there is an objective standard of how people should feel sounds foreign to these ears accustomed to the language of the Winnipeg School Division where all feelings are equally valued.
ReplyDeleteFound it so interesting that Mr. Lewis realizes that children are delightful and that his inability to enjoy the company of children is a flaw in himself. No one would think that these days. Now we say, "to each their own". If you don't like the company of children then that is just how you are, we don't say, "you don't like the company of children then there is something wrong with you."
Also will be spending time thinking about the fact that without the "chest" that part which orders emotions into thoughtful sentiments, man is either only spirit (rational) or animal(visceral) it is the chest function that sets us as human. There is much to think upon in only this first chapter.